The right to seize an FIV+ cat is going to be a disturbing story. I want the readers at PoC to read this and then come back to this page for discussion. It’s at — the page at the website bluedogstate.com, is broken at Nov 2012 so it has been removed. Sorry for that.
In a nutshell, a cat owner from Albany County, New York adopted an FIV+ cat from a shelter. The cat quit eating and the owner and his sister took the cat to the vet. Although the cat wasn’t in distress, the vet recommended euthanasia because of the FIV. The vet called the police as soon as the owners headed home with their cat.
Keep in mind the cat had food, water, shelter and love. The cat just wouldn’t eat. And the call was made to the police before the owners had time to seek a second opinion from another vet. Police arrived, seized the cat without any kind of legal documents and took it back to the vet who blew the whistle. The cat was euthanized, thus destroying any evidence on the condition of the cat.
The vet wants the owners charged with animal cruelty for not agreeing to the euthanasia in the first place. The state of New York doesn’t have a mandatory euthanasia law. Should the owners be convicted, their name and photo will go onto a registry listing them as animal abusers. They’re also facing jail time and a fine. All because they chose to take their cat home rather than kill it.
The concept of animal cruelty hinges on malice.
Perhaps this FIV+ cat had a tummy ache. Or maybe it was too hot to eat. We’ll never know because the evidence died with the cat. The vet who murdered this cat has stated that people who wait until an animal is so sick that death is the only option should be charged with animal cruelty.
How many vets feel this way? We could all be in trouble if the majority of vets think like this one. Many animals become seriously ill overnight. Panleuk and parvo are both fast killers. If a dog or cat dies from one of these illnesses, should we, the owner, face charges? What will this do to our frame of mind to seek veterinary advice if we’re afraid of being turned in?
What will this line of thinking do to those who wish to adopt an FIV+ cat? After reading the original case about the cat who was seized and killed may sway many from taking that risk. Because eventually an FIV+ cat may become ill and treatment must be sought.
This means a lot more cats will die unadopted, including those with other disabilities. I critisize the actions of this vet because it took the right to die with dignity away from the cat owners. It also took away the right to live until such time the cat was truly suffering.
I think it’s sad when a member of the veterinary profession goes on a vigilanty justice mission. I’m also thankful I haven’t met any vets who fall into this category.
I don’t know how you can say that the cat wasn’t in distress, Elisa. The cat was dying, in Dr. Cheever’s words “cell by cell”. A slow, miserable death. The owners had allowed the cat to degenerate until euthanasia was the only remaining humane course of action. Dr. Cheever is a well-known vet that is known as an animal rights activist, and I think she takes the suffering of animals very seriously. Personally, I am glad that there are veterinarians that will report owners when they see extreme negligence taking place. Charmer II was jaundiced and dehydrated, and the police must have seen his agonized state when they came to the Sagliocca’s home to seize him.
Elisa left out many crucial details of the story and basically rewrote what happened so it barely resembles what has been reported. This irks me to no end as does your blind defense of her without bothering to fact check first. This has happened in a large portion of her articles and is to the point where there should be a disclaimer that states there is no fact checking and conjecture is the order of the day.
And to compare the misery and suffering of a dying, neglected cat to that of a cat that is declawed is to compare apples to oranges and has no validity. This is about neglect, suffering and euthanasia, not amputation or its aftermath. Minimizing what the cat went through at the hands of his *owners* is really disrespectful to him. Declawing is an entirely different discussion and frankly, you’re preaching to the choir here about that.
Perhaps everything on the internet is not the complete facts. Only the vet and client and cat know the total and true facts.
Thanks for your comment. Not sure if Elisa is twisting things but thanks for adding some important detail.
I am not sure it changes things because the principle being discussed is can a vet call in the police to seize a cat if the client does not euthanise the cat as directed by the vet?
I don’t think a vet can or should do that. If a vet is allowed to do that he or she will have to be selective because I am sure there are hundreds of thousands of cases of people taking their cats home when they should let the vet euthanise him/her. Or people come to the vet way too late in the first place.
There are more important cases of animal cruelty happening such as vets declawing cats! Sorry to go on about that but I just have to.
From a moral standpoint if this vet declaws cats he has no right to criticise his client for causing pain and suffering.
I tend to agree with you. Lots of people do what you say. But are these people criminals? That is a tough question but if you criminalised every case of a person euthanising their pet too late causing suffering you would have courts full for the next year. It is not practical nor in the public interest. Also it is difficult to assess pain in a cat etc. and judge when to euthanise.
A lot of failures to go to the vet are due to finance not immoral behavior. Do you punish people who can’t afford to go to the vet to check if their cat needs to be euthanised?
It is complicated. I understand what you say. The answer as Ruth AKA Kattaddorra says is education and better companion cat caretaking. Proactive measures. Nowhere near enough is done to regulate and train cat and dog owners.
Vets too have a role to play. They cause unnecessary pain by the bucket load when they declaw cats. They do that for money.
I was able to find the article about this case at http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Loving-care-interpreted-as-animal-abuse-3658128.php and now I have to wonder why you would neglect to post the real facts and instead twist what happened to create a controversy? The cat at the center of this story had developed liver cancer and at the time it was presented to the vet had developed jaundice and was dehydrated. In a cat with no other disease process, this is an EMERGENCY situation and requires immediate treatment.For a cat already suffering with FIV it is much worse. The moment these people chose to do nothing and bring the cat home they were absolutely guilty of animal cruelty and were letting the cat suffer unnecessarily.
The vet stated that people who wait until an animal is so sick that death is the only option should be charged with animal cruelty. He is absolutely right and the truth of the matter is probably that the owners of this cat let it suffer for a long time before they bothered to lift a finger to help it. If you have ever watched the animal hoarders show you see this type of neglect from the owners, or worse, all the time. There are lots of people that aren’t necessarily hoarders that are also guilty of the same thing. A vet is not going to apply this to someone whose cat may have gotten a sudden illness. Long term neglect is usually obvious and documentable and a veterinarian is not going to put his reputation and license on the line like this unless he believes that the animal is really suffering and that the owners are responsible for it. What most likely happened here is that there was more to the story than the “owners” revealed. It was said the cat had “stopped eating” but for how long? It is possible that the people waited and did nothing for some time and at the point the cat was brought to the clinic it was in a severe state of emaciation. Another possibility is that the cats teeth were rotting out (common with FIV cats) and the owners, by allowing it to go untreated and then doing nothing and bringing it home, were allowing it to continue to suffer. The majority of vets out there don’t recommend euthanasia lightly, and if it is obvious that it is necessary to stop suffering but a client declines and allows the suffering to continue, that is reportable animal cruelty and the veterinarian is obligated to do so. People neglect their animals to death every day. There are dogs and cats that are suffering from incurable diseases (cancer for example) and are in the end stages of their disease. They are in pain and suffering, sometimes from multiple issues at the same time (eye problems, stomach problems, dental, etc.) yet some owners will completely ignore the reality and claim they are “just fine” OR they have this idea that they should die “naturally ” at home despite the fact that these animals are miserable and in pain. Euthanasia defined means “good death” and is a gift to those in an endless cycle of illness and suffering. The cat in this article was probably given a gift and it came from the veterinarian who cared more about it than the owners did.